��������

A credible path to a global agreement to end plastic pollution will depend not only on political ambition, but on creating the right conditions for collective problem-solving and ensuring the treaty can be “future proofed” - even if it is not perfect from the outset, experts have warned. 

The conclusion emerged from an event hosted last week by the  at the ��������’s Revolution Plastics Institute, which brought together representatives from governments, international organisations, civil society and academia to discuss how international negotiations on a plastics treaty can move forward more effectively. 

The session was based on a new report from the Global Plastics Centre -  which examines how the global plastics treaty negotiation process has functioned to date. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with participants directly involved in the negotiations over the past three years, the report finds that progress has been shaped not only by political positions, but also by how the process itself has been designed and managed. 

The event featured a panel discussion with Dennis Clare from the Federated States of Micronesia delegation; - Guillaume Lecaros De Cossio, Peruvian diplomat, and expert negotiator; Magnus Løvold from the Norwegian Academy of International Law; Andrea Zbinden Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland; and Olivia Bonner, Forum on Trade, Environment and SDGs. 

Panellists emphasised that while ambition remains essential, the effectiveness of the negotiation process itself - including trust, transparency, and structure - will be critical to securing an agreement. Andrea Zbinden highlighted the importance of establishing shared foundations before tackling complex details, she said: “It's very difficult to negotiate the details, if we haven’t agreed on the fundamentals.” 

The report sets out a series of recommendations to strengthen the negotiation process as it enters its next phase. These include developing a clear roadmap to guide negotiations, improving the integration of technical understanding with political dialogue, and building on informal discussions to develop a basic proposal ahead of the next substantive meeting. 

Panellists also stressed the need for greater momentum and decision-making within the process. Magnus Løvold said: “A lot of discussions have been opened on a lot of issues that are super complex, but not a single item of substance has really been closed, and that makes things very messy.” 

The discussion also highlighted where the current process is falling short in practice, including the lack of cumulative progress between sessions, limited closure on substantive issues, and the challenge of translating discussion into negotiated treaty text. 

Dr Antaya March, Director of the Global Plastics Policy Centre, who hosted the event said: “There is a tendency to focus on ambition alone, but ambition without the right process will not deliver results. What we are seeing is that progress depends on creating the conditions for collective problem-solving. Even if the treaty is not perfect at the outset, it must be designed in a way that allows it to strengthen over time.” 

As attention turns to the next phase of negotiations, the event highlighted that achieving a global plastics treaty will depend not only on political will, but on whether the conditions are in place to support a more focused, constructive, and solution-oriented negotiation process that uses this current intersessional period to develop clearer foundations for negotiation, rather than extending existing patterns of discussion without resolution.